WASHINGTON - Selected to run by the powerful and wealthy, promising the public
one thing and delivering another after elected, the President of the United
States is the focus of a new political doctrine -- the unitary executive.
The office of the president has rapidly become a law unto itself over the past
ten years.

Some time before February 2010, the President of the United States authorized the assassination of a U.S. citizen living overseas. The citizen was identified by the White House as a terrorist.

Unlike previous government programs to kill individuals overseas, this one wasn't a covert operation. The program was openly announced, without qualification. Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, discussed the plan in February at a congressional hearing. A few weeks later, John O. Brennan, the president's National Security Adviser,
announced that the marked man was one of "dozens" of U.S. citizens put
on the presidential death list because "they are very concerning to us."

The principal of unfettered executive power, absent political and
judicial restraint, was officially established. Executive power now supersedes established law.

We have come to the point where the president can openly designate a
U.S. citizen as a terrorist removing all rights, including the right to
life. The administration implied that this was for overseas targets only. But recall that the illegal wiretapping program was originally
for overseas calls only. It rapidly spread to domestic surveillance, as
well.

We have laws that require investigations, indictments, and trials
prior to applying any sentence, let alone the death penalty. Those
laws were cast aside, replaced by executive fiat.

Who spoke out against this assumption of executive prerogative?
Very few. What is the next step?

Will terrorists designated by the executive branch be targeted for execution in what is now referred to as the homeland?

This open proclamation of lawlessness by the president was asserted
and accepted without so much as a whimper by the other branches of
government, political leaders, and the mainstream media.

War Making and other Lawlessness

The broadest premeditated program of lawlessness by the executive
branch concerns war making. The U.S. has not declared a war since World
War II when President Franklin D. Roosevelt gained congressional
approval for declarations of war against Japan and Germany in December,
1941, then Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania in June, 1942.

The military efforts in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, for example, were all wars. Yet, with one exception, every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt committed the
nation to war or the continuation of war without the required congressional declaration.

The Constitution couldn't be more explicit. Only Congress has the
power to declare war: "The Congress shall have power to ... declare war... (Article I, Section 8). Calling a war by another name does not justify bypassing the requirement for congressional action. It's still a war. Yet the
governing law, the U.S. Constitution, has been ignored time and again.

This is the ultimate lawlessness. It invokes the major efforts of
people, material, and ongoing expenditures. These wars result in
injuries, deaths, and destruction in the nations attacked and injury and
death to U.S. citizens unlawfully committed. In addition, the wars fuel substantial ill will and hostility toward the United States.

Congress has been consulted, so to speak, about these wars. Prior to
the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example, President Bush had to prove
that Iraq was an imminent danger to the United States. The intelligence
community produced a report that wrongly indicated that Iraq had
weapons of mass destruction. But the only scenario listed for a Saddam
Hussein attack on the U.S.
was in the case that the U.S. attacked Iraq; the very act the president
asked Congress to authorize due to an imminent danger that never
existed.

In addition, the pretext for war, 9/11, was bolstered with
hysterical fear-mongering that the nonexistent weapons of mass
destruction would be used here. No credible finding was (or has been)
made that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 and George W. Bush has
explicitly denied any connection.

This illegal invasion and undeclared war were based on a deliberate
lie, a 180 degree reversal of the intelligence report used to justify a
preemptive invasion. Lying in order to launch an invasion is a crime.Nothing was done to punish the lying by the president and nothing much
was said by those in power to indicate that a war based on lies needed
to be stopped.

Disregard for the law continued after the invasion. Security threats
created by the invasion were used as the rationale for presidential
license to violate established law. The secret, illegal wiretapping of
citizens by the Bush administration violated multiple U.S. laws
protecting a citizen's right to privacy.

The torture of prisoners captured in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars
was another presidential act in full defiance of established law.
Rather than provide information, the unlawful techniques actually
inspired greater resistance.

Architecture of a Totalitarian State

The architecture of a totalitarian state is almost fully in place and
the lawless implementation is accelerating. While the Bush violations
of the Constitution and various federal codes were greeted with shock in
some quarters, the staid declaration of a presidential assassination
order by Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Barack Obama, was met with
virtually no resistance by Congress.

The president can point to congressional authorization for its acts and judicial
tolerance when those acts are challenged. But that doesn't change the fact that
the Constitution and the laws it embodies and protects have been savaged.

We are ruled by a lawless executive branch, by presidents who
routinely ignore the law. The chief executive in our system is
unchecked.

Presidents also make sure that others are never held accountable for these lawless acts, including their predecessors from the opposition
party. It is a perpetual and predictable process of occasional feigned
concern that masks a profound indifference to the law and protects
those who do the most damage through that indifference.

Those with any doubts about a lawless nation need only refer to the
suit filed against the presidential assassination program. Two civil rights groups seek to
stop the program based on long-standing and clear U.S. and international
law.

The administration's response was that the suit should be dismissed
since a trial would require the release of state "secrets", i.e., the
reasons and motives for their extra-judicial murders and how their
information was obtained. The executive branch simply declares that its
decisions are beyond any review. Our current president continues to
animate the unitary executive Frankenstein created by Addington, Bybee,
and Yoo.

Unfettered executive power is allowed by an enabling Congress and a
complicit federal judiciary. The three branches of government form
a seamless whole of self-supporting lawlessness.

END

Special thanks to Michael Green and Andrew Kreig for their very helpful comments.

This article may be reproduced in part or in while with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content,
and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will
not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements
contained in this article.

Fair Use Notice
This page contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such
material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political
issues relating to alternative views of the 9/11 events, etc. We believe
this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information go
to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use
copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond
"fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.